Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCA 121/2017

[2019] HKCFI [2302]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 121 OF 2017

______________

BETWEEN
	MissLEUNG SO HUNG SIEM (梁素紅)	Plaintiff
and
	Mr CARSON WEN (温家旋)	1st Defendant
	SANCUS GROUP	2nd Defendant
	JONES DAY	3rd Defendant
	BANK OF ASIA (BVI) LTD	4th Defendant
	Ms ISABELLA CHAN	5th Defendant
	SANCUS GROUP	6th Defendant

______________

Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 3 September 2019

Date of Decision: 19 September 2019

_______________

D E C I S I O N

________________

The application

1.This is the application by the plaintiff (“P”) by Summons dated 11 July 2019 (the “Summons”) for leave pursuant to section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance to appeal against my Decision handed down on 29 March 2018 (“My Decision”).

2.For background of the case, the facts leading to my Decision, and my reasons for the same, I refer to My Decision.

No explanation for the delay

3.The present application for leave was only taken out on 11 July 2019. It is some 15 months out of time.

4.In the Summons, there is a section which bears the heading “Lapse of time”. No reason (or at least and with respect no comprehensible reason) for the delay has however been provided therein.

5.Amongst the many documents which P has filed before me in purported support of her application, there is one which bears the heading “Reasons on the delay of filing the leave application on Mar 29, 2018’s orders by Deputy Judge Keith Yeung on Mar 7, 2018’s appeal hearing Against Nov 17, 2017’s orders by Master KH Hui”. No discernable reason for the delay has been provided therein. Towards the end of that document, P said:

“ On July 11 2019, I filed the Summons to apply for further appeal on HCA 121/2017 after receiving the Hon Mr Justice Ng’s final seal order dated July 5, 2019 on HCSD 40/2018.”

6.I fail to see how an Order in a separate application to set aside a statutory demand has anything to do with the delay.

The proposed appeal has no merits

7.I have nonetheless considered the Summons. I have also considered the oral submissions P made to me. No discernable ground of appeal has been presented to me.

8.In her affirmation dated 28 August 2019 (one of several filed for the purpose of the hearing before me), P mentioned a request:

“ to withhold the Judgments on Mar 29, 2019 with new evidence and existing evidence supported by Court Rules and Written decision from Judges on hearings related to ‘Perjury’ ‘Fraud’ ‘defamation’ ‘Breach of Contract by leaking of Confidential information and legal costs to be paid by defendants as contracted on April 29, 2015’. ”

9.Quite apart from the fact that my Decision was handed down on 29 March 2018 but not 29 March 2019, I had difficulty understanding what P was seeking to do. During the hearing I requested P to explain to me what she meant by seeking to “withhold the Judgments”. She informed me that she, relying on Order 19 rule 9, sought to set aside or vary My Decision. She pointed me to a paragraph of a judgment from the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Territory of the Virgin Islands. In that paragraph, Sancus Group Limited, abbreviated as Sancus Group, was mentioned. P then said that “Sancus Group” in fact existed.

10.Order 19 rule 9 concerns setting aside judgments entered in default of pleadings. It has nothing to do with this application. I have no power to set aside My Decision or the Order I made in consequence. The Judgment from the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has no relevance to this application or any intended appeal.

11.I repeat also paragraph 24 of my Decision, that “[P] had before Master K H Hui agreed to the provision of the 2^ndF&B. She did in fact do so. This appeal, apart from being unmeritorious, also has no real purpose to serve”.

12.The proposed appeal has no prospect of success.

Conclusion

13.For the above reasons, I dismiss the application.

Costs

14.I see no reason why P should not bear the costs of this application. Ms Chung, counsel for D1, D4 and D5, sought summary assessment. I have considered the Statement of Costs submitted to me. In my view, the claimed sum of HK$39,058 is a reasonable and appropriate one. I order that the total costs of HK$39,058 should be paid by P to the solicitors acting for D1, D4 and D5 within 28 days from the day hereof.